Category Archives: Social issues

A chaplain’s view on sharing

As a volunteer chaplain for about 15 years now, I know there are two types of group debrief that can happen after a major event. One type is useful, and the other is less useful and (thankfully) going out of fashion.

Situation group debrief
After a major event, it’s useful for the whole team to get together and assess how the situation went, to reflect on both good and bad. This helpful group work fits because the whole group faced the same situation, even though individual responsibilities were different.

Here are some typical questions asked:

“What was the scene like on arrival?”
“What were the patients’ presenting conditions?”
“What standard procedures did we follow? Did we need to modify anything?”
“Did the communication work?”

These are all quite functional: what the team did, and why. It reinforces procedures, investigates when creativity is required, and crystallises any lessons to hold on to.

Support group debrief
The unhelpful group debrief is an attempt to provide support, or psychological first aid, with everyone present. It tends to be a whip-around the group asking everyone, “How are you?” There are a couple of ways it can be a hindrance to support, rather than a help. (That’s why we don’t do this any more!)

The first problem is that people in a group are likely to say they are OK even if that’s not true. This lost opportunity is compounded by the likelihood that managers will hear, “We checked everyone, and they’re fine.”

Secondly, even if there is honest sharing, reactions vary by individual. And rightly so! There may have been just one event, but the numerous participants all bring their own character and history. Group sharing immediately post-event can cross-contaminate responses, or even undermine one’s reaction.

Imagine the following possible thoughts in such a group:

“Adam got teary and sad. Am I sick for not feeling anything much?”
“She got angry at the situation. Maybe that is what I feel, too.”
“Jo looks as calm as she said she is. I must be wrong for this job.”

A lesson in times of Covid-19
These two styles of group debrief came to mind because, it seems to me, in lockdown to reduce the spread of corona virus, social media is playing the role of a debriefing group. That’s good, but it’s also risky.

Social media is good to the extent that information needed by anyone can spread quickly. There is significant news to hear from governments, health agencies, the media, police, extended family, the sports club, schools, churches, local business, …

What’s risky is the amplification of fear and anxiety, or of lies and hatred. I’ve sometimes felt sucked in to a vortex of paranoia and cynicism when scrolling a social media feed. Even knowing this, it can be hard to get the fingers to stop instead of scroll! Even worse, this poisonous type of ‘group’ debrief does not even have the benefit of bringing people to be with each other – we’re still physically apart!

The lesson for me – and maybe for some others, too – is not to run away from all news and information. Rather, it’s important to get the appropriate info while being wary of the subtle dangers of having our reactions contaminated by those things we know are poison.

Public money, private values

Leave a Reply

There certainly is a silly ruckus about whatever legislation the Ruddock review into religious freedom will produce. Leaked recommendations, selective reporting, sensationalism beyond and evidence, and the usual subsequent social media ‘stacks on’. (You know, the, ‘Yeah, I’m sure I hate that too – and another thing …’)

Right now, I want to pick up one line that I’ve seen again and again, but always without justification. People say it as if it’s obvious. It’s this:

If you choose a private school, you should get no government money. It’s your choice.

Superficially – very superficially – there’s an appeal to this. But really it’s baseless. I spent ten minutes wondering how many private groups receive public money, even though they hold contested positions. My quick list is below.

Just to be clear, these groups and movements gain money – sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly by tax concessions, easy access to politicians, etc. And they all have opponents within Australian society. That means the taxes of every Australian supports something they oppose.

For me, such generosity is both a compromise (I don’t want my money supporting that) and also a sign of a mature society (there’s space for us and for them).

Money goes to:

Political parties (Labor, Liberal, National, Greens, One Nation, …)
Private medical insurance companies
Private schools (religious or not)
Controversial medical procedures (abortion, vanity-style plastic surgery)
Solar energy & wind farms
Coal, gas, & mining
Public-private partnerships like city tollways
Bike paths
Research: animal experiments, etc
Owners of poker machines and other gambling businesses
Business and industry lobby groups
Trades unions

All of these groups and people have numerous opponents, including opponents of non-government schooling. To single out education as the one place to apply funding purity makes no sense.

I wish people kept away from this nuclear option (Nothing for you!), so the complex question can be asked and answered: what is a good or appropriate type of government support for education of all types?

Protecting the kids

Leave a Reply

Australia has just received the report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, after five years of hearings. It’s been necessary but terrible. There have been awful accounts of institutional power used to cover up abuse and protect abusers – including a number of churches or ministries. The police referrals from the royal commission number in the thousands.

As a Christian minister, and also with some junior sports involvement, I have wondered what to do to improve safety. There are a number of good and widely-known protective measures: comply with your state’s Working With Children Check (NSW here); complete safety training; have nominated safety contacts; arrange groups so children are not left alone with an adult.

But here’s an idea I’d like to suggest. It’s a message for any adult-trainer-teacher to communicate to every child and family under their care. I’d like each adult to say this:

Make sure that you tell people everything you learn here. There are no secrets!

I reckon this statement has a few good things going for it.

Abuse loves secrecy.
So many accounts of those hurt include things like, “It’s our special secret”, “If you tell anyone I will …” Let’s make secrecy explicitly against our ways.
It’s a great way to teach.
A child who can communicate the lesson has learnt the lesson. It might be a Sunday School message about how Jesus’ death brings forgiveness of sin, or a cycling tip about how to hold the handlebars.
It can develop enthusiasm.
“Guess what I learnt this week!”
It tells teachers and trainers that we expect kids to share all that happens.
It tells parents and carers to expect communication about our program.
It’s good promotion.
If you’re teaching Sunday School, surely you want more families to join in and hear the good news. Similarly for a sports team, music group, art class, … Happy participants who speak up are a walking invitation.
It tells the whole church/club/group that we have a culture of openness.
Biblically, there are no secrets.
God’s judgement is coming, and all secrets will be revealed. Christians especially should know and live by this. Jesus said, “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” (Luke 8:17)

This is only a small tip. But I think I will begin to try it out. I certainly pray for better protection of children in all sorts of institutions across Australia.

God and refugees

Leave a Reply

At Albury Bible Church, we hosted a meal with discussion – called Serious Eating – on the topic of God and Refugees.

The format included a short talk, about five minutes, as a thought-starter. Then, on each table, there was a menu for further discussion. For a lighter conversation, you would choose the entree. For more depth and difficulty, go for the main course.

I had a request to write up what I said. So here it is, expended from my brief written notes to make some sense on its own.

There’s a refugee problem right now. For example, quoting last week’s news, 10,000 people every day are fleeing Mosul. The stories we hear on the news are heart-breaking.

We care because of our common humanity. Common humanity is a biblical idea, but now so widely accepted we do not think of it as a ‘God idea’. But that’s OK, because there’s more to say about God and refugees.

When he was a child, Jesus became a refugee. In Matthew 2:12-15 we hear about the real risk to Jesus’ life. Herod then murdered of Bethlehem’s boys, and Matthew 2:18 could describe the TV shot of any modern refugee mothers in grief.

Furthermore, the Bible’s confronting message is that we all are refugees – though of another kind. We are refugees from God, running away not because he is bad but because we are. The way people respond to modern refugees does show positive humanity in compassion, but it also demonstrates our dark and evil side. As individuals and as a nation, we are far from perfect.

The real mind flip about God and refugees brings together these two points, about Jesus and about us. Jesus became a refugee to save refugees. We see this on the cross.

Jesus died as a Jewish man executed by the Roman empire – typical political oppression. Jesus’ death was also spiritually oppressive: his own national leaders abandoned him, as did the empire, and his disciples. Even God the Father was silent when Jesus called.

In his death, Jesus became the most excluded man in history. He said this was in order to include us with God. Jesus became the oppressed outsider to welcome outsiders to God. Romans 5:6 fits the idea that Jesus became a refugee to welcome refugees.

So to understand God and refugees, we need to take seriously God’s works to offer us salvation. Do we know and trust Jesus? All refugees have basic needs. Forgiveness is our basic need before God!

Within this huge overarching good news story, it’s clear also that God is all for refugee care. By looking at Jesus’ own cross-shaped love, we see the principles for refugee care – it is service that’s difficult, costly, patient, and not selfish.

What does that mean for you and me? I don’t think there are direct biblical political policies to apply to the world. I don’t see there’s a ‘Christian politics’ – but there should be action. Inaction and apathy just don’t fit what we see of God’s passionate love for the helpless.

Egalitarian ways to hurt women

Leave a Reply

Mere Orthodoxy has a long, worthwhile read, Why We Should Jettison the “Strong Female Character”. The topic is, simply, female characters in movies. Less simply, and more accurately, it’s about how today we publicly talk about men and women.

The piece nudged me into writing this much shorter post about a thought I’ve had for a while – that ‘egalitarian’ moves to help women often undermine women.

Taking the lead from Mere Orthodoxy, we can see this at work in movies and TV shows. Modern video drama has to have dynamic, active female leads. Any category of film needs such women – be it kids’ flicks, teen stories, or adult drama.

These women will, often, be aggressive, rebellious, problem-solvers, sometimes reckless, gifted in combat … winners on all fronts. And they help women, it seems, by breaking the stereotype.

Except that they don’t break type at all.

Look at that list above. It’s as stereotyped as they come – it’s the (formerly) male pattern of dramatic behaviour. That is, for women to have success, they need to become more manly. How does that free women from oppression?

The supposed sin is in thinking there are two ways of being human, male and female. It’s beyond thought now to suggest that men and women are are different enough to be distinct. But the new orthodoxy suggests there is but one way of being a successful human – and it’s the manly way.

The Mere Orthodoxy piece notes the change in Disney Princesses.

Within the kickass princess trope lurks the implication that, to prove equality of dignity, worth, agency, and significance as a character, all of a woman’s resolve, wisdom, courage, love, kindness, self-sacrifice, and other traits simply aren’t enough—she must be capable of putting men in their place by outmatching them in endeavors and strengths that naturally favor them, or otherwise making them look weak or foolish.

If equality means its not enough to be a woman, then equality has a problem, don’t you think?

And it’s not just the movies. Consider the sexual revolution. As a generalisation, the sexual revolution has produced an ethic that promotes wide-ranging experimentation and minimal commitment. Men play that sexual game, and women are ’empowered’ to do the same.

But that game is the stereotypical dream of the faithless male roué: easy and frequent sex, with no cost. The sexual revolution makes it easier for men to fulfil that dream, and tells women that it’s wonderful that they can be the same.

Welcome to the glory of freedom, where your equality is defined and measured by being a user, a Lady Casanova!

So we see a double insistence that women copy men: positive and negative. Movies urge the more positive characteristics, and the bedroom is where to copy the negative and selfish.

This places some expressions of egalitarianism in a mixed-up place: a good aim (honour women), with a poor method (be more like a man), based on a wrong idea (men and women are the same).

What should a Christian do? I’d say we should hold firmly to the right idea, and let methods and aims flow from that.

So, for instance, the biblical teaching honours the complementarity of male and female. There is difference, without separation. Male and female in Genesis 2 are both required, and not interchangeable – a reality that the Bible never abandons. The idea matters, because truth matters. As to a method of living out this reality … well, I promised a short piece – so that’s for another day!

Quick review: Captured by a better vision

Leave a Reply

Captured By A Better Vision: Living Porn Free by Tim Chester
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The prevalence of pornography in our electronic age is an important matter for the whole of society, and even more so for Christians who know that sexuality is a wonderful gift from God that can be awfully twisted into ugliness.

Chester is not all about ‘a technique’ to stop porn in one’s life. But he does not mock techniques, either, but places them in a better whole-of-life context. Use the skills (like accountability software, etc), but use them as tools in the bigger picture of life with Christ.

Chester’s five broad topics are, in my words: hate porn, love God, trust God, actively avoid porn, get help. As is clear, there are reasons why, and there are tips how. And both are important.

Chester quotes extensively from people who completed an on-line survey for him, and this illustrates his points nicely while introducing a chatty feel to parts of the book. This complements the parts which are more solid sections of thoughtful argument.

I have a few criticisms, but none of them are major.

Though a shortish book, about 160 pages, I think it could have been edited a bit more. The chapters seem to have long introductions before getting to the major point. And those intros don’t always really tightly connect to the main point, in my view.

Chester acknowledges that porn is a problem for both men and women, and can be expressed in ‘non-porn’ ways (like romance novels, or underwear junk mail). But I certainly had the sense this book was more about blokes with porn problems. If there was some editing out (above), then the book could edit in more on women’s experiences of porn.

Chester takes the line of Genesis 2:18 – that it was not good for the man to be alone – to mean he was lonely, needing companionship. That’s a tempting preaching point, believe me!, but is probably not the point of the text.

But to finish with negatives would be way off – this is a good book, on an important topic, written with gospel-shaped truth, which shows love to all touched by the damaging scourge of pornography.

View all my reviews

Not all desires are equal

Leave a Reply

Not all desires are the same.

Kind of obvious? Yes! But important in a world whose ethical arguments depend so much on desire. What rights rule today, in the western world? The right to self-determination, to self-expression, and to self-definition. Desire is all-knowing.

If I will it then it is OK. (The usual illogical caveat that follows is as long as it hurts no one.) And more than OK, if I will it then it’s morally required. Desires reign.

Proverbs 6 shows how false that is. The back end of the chapter warns at length about giving in to the desire for illicit sex: don’t go to the strange woman, the adulteress, your neighbour’s wife.

But in the flow of the argument, there’s comment about stealing food. Why? Have a look at these verses (29-32).

So [burned] is he who goes in to his neighbour’s wife;
    none who touches her will go unpunished.
People do not despise a thief if he steals
    to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,
but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold;
    he will give all the goods of his house.
He who commits adultery lacks sense;
    he who does it destroys himself.

In the middle of warning against adultery, here is a hungry thief. He steals out of poverty and hunger. His desire for food is reasonable. We understand, and we don’t despise him for his crime. But we still punish him.

Theft remains theft, even when driven by the understandable desire for food.

But the point is not that the thief will still receive punishment. Not ‘the thief gets punishment, so too will the adulterer’.

The point is this: theft driven by hunger (though wrong) makes sense, but adultery is just plain stupid. Adultery is always self-harm.

He who commits adultery lacks sense;
he who does it destroys himself.

Proverbs compares two desires here – the desire for food, the desire for sex. The comparison is in the realm of wrongdoing (stealing and adultery). And the comparison tells us to treat different desires differently.

Now there are lots of ways we need to heed this point. It’s pretty plain that there’s a trendiness in pushing for same-sex marriage. And it would be easy for me to go there (‘just because two people desire sex with each other does not mean it is good, or needs state validation’).

But I’d prefer us to see that ethical difference between desires applies all over the place. Perhaps I – and maybe you too? – need to consider where I err in this matter?

We might think of:

Any sexual desire outside of committed, life-long marriage
The desire to enjoy alcohol
Longing to see more of the world
The desire to succeed in your chosen employment
The longing for a successful ministry
A desire to be well thought-of
The desire for physical or mental health, for self or a loved one

And on and on we could go. Again and again, I believe, our desires take us. Then our reasons and arguments follow along to justify what we want.

So let’s remember that our desires can take us into error. Even the good desire for food can go feral. Jesus (in the final verse quoted below) said to desire first what is truly first – God’s kingdom.

The desire of the righteous ends only in good;
the expectation of the wicked in wrath. (Proverbs 11:23)

Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire;
he breaks out against all sound judgment. (Proverbs 18:1)

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:33)

Violence, Christianity, & a local paper

1 Reply

For my own interest, here’s a small interaction of letters in my local paper, The Border Mail. Make of the exchange what you will. Yet we see that there’s easy opportunity to speak up and contribute. I was tempted to just dismiss the initial letter, but decided to spend a few minutes putting together a short response. I am glad for the openness to be printed, and I am glad that I said something.

And remember, someone will certainly get to speak – even if their arguments are laughably wrong.

May 18, 2015

Religion sows seeds of violence
DESPITE all the political facades and double talk, there is no legislation dealing with domestic violence.

In reality, the perpetrators of violent acts within the home are protected through a lack of law.

Let the point be clear, our politicians, our legal system has failed to take domestic violence seriously enough to legislate against it!

Why? Our Christian belief system says God is a male and white, man was made in the image of God, woman was extracted from the rib of man and must be subservient to him.

The apostles were all male and women have until recently been banned from higher order positions in the church; the Pope is male and always will be.

A man had the right to control his wife and even beat her up.

Surely this is where the seeds of domestic violence are sown.

For our politicians to legislate against domestic violence is virtually a breach of God’s words and orders of things as laid down through the Bible.

All contemporary religious institutions in effect support domestic violence through practised ideals that man is superior and in charge of woman.

In reality women are often treated badly in law when they speak out against domestic violence.

— ALAN J. LAPPIN,
Boorhaman North

May 21, 2015

Some in church still in denial
ALAN Lappin (The Border Mail, May 18) is right. Religion, including Christianity, contributes to the scourge of domestic violence.

The teaching of female submission to males, the promotion of male headship in church, home and society, has contributed to violence against women.

The church, finally, is starting to acknowledge this issue.

Many men who uphold this traditional teaching are as appalled as any that it is misused to justify violence, but it is indisputable that views which disempower women and elevate male authority contribute to this problem.

Yet, Mr Lappin demonstrates a simplistic understanding of the Bible’s teaching on male-female relationships.

The Genesis creation story affirms that humanity was created in God’s image, stating “male and female he (God) created them”.

This establishes the unity and equality of men and women as image-bearers of God. Jesus’ remarkable acceptance of women and even St Paul’s writings, where he exhorts husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially, and his missionary partnership with various women, sowed the seeds for women’s full participation and equal status in both church and home.

Sadly, the seeds have taken too long to sprout and many church traditionalists continual in denial and discrimination. Male headship and female subordination make no sense in contemporary society.

They are outmoded, oppressive and harmful.

— REV PETER McKEAGUE,
Anglican parish, Northern Albury

May 21, 2015

Alan, you are so far off track
ALAN Lappin’s letter (The Border Mail, May 18) on domestic violence is disturbingly wrong.

He first claims that there is no legislation for domestic violence. Please don’t believe him. Though we should improve laws, there is legal protection.

Then Alan goes on a bizarre tirade against Christianity.

In all the fine social groups I have been part of — education, sport, service, and church — churches are where I have heard greatest efforts to address domestic violence.

Christians follow Jesus, who gave his life to serve the lost and powerless. So protection of those in danger is natural topic to raise.

— CHRIS LITTLE,
East Albury

May 23, 2015

Christ preached love for women
I AM writing in response to the letter of Alan J Lappin (The Border Mail, May 18) who laid the blame for domestic violence on the Christian belief system.

Christ was compassionate and respectful to the women he met and changed their lives for the better like no one else could.

Jesus accepted women when his society had cast them out.

Christianity does not teach that a man has the “right to control his wife and even beat her up” but, instead, a man is commanded to “love his wife as he loves himself” (Ephesians 5:33).

Christianity aims to uphold the rights of a woman and family relationships.

Domestic violence is a corruption of this and is condemned by Christians and Christianity.

— NANCY MASSEY,
West Wodonga

Death and the state

Leave a Reply

The execution of eight people in Indonesia today, including Australians Chan and Sukumaran, makes us all ask about capital punishment.

The question is straightforward : Is it right for a nation to kill people?

The answer is less easy. Here are some of my thoughts.

We agree with state death
Firstly, we have to acknowledge that we all agree with state-authorised death. Even in Australia, with no judicial death penalty, we train police and defence forces in use of lethal weapons. Therefore we say that these guns can have legitimate use.

This reflect what Paul wrote about the authorities having good reason to bear ‘a sword’ (Romans 13:4). Romans 13 shows that state authority is real, even to the point of death.

Capital punishment for sin
Romans 13 also indicates the reason that would justify capital punishment: doing evil. God’s appointment of rulers (even when they do not acknowledge him) is to punish wrongdoers (see also 1 Peter 2:13-14). Thus, even if a ruler abhors the term ‘sin’, that ruler’s task is to punish sin.

This is a significant matter: there’s no room for killing in the name of political expedience, or execution for minor offence. If capital punishment is in place, it can only be justified by being a punishment for significant evil. Genesis 9:5-6 indicate that murder, for instance, is such an offence because of its double attack: on a person, and on God because that person is God’s image.

Capital punishment as sin
But a danger with state authority is that it also is stained with sin. The apparatus of justice and death are affected. The people involved in writing and practising law are sinful. So there is the great danger of injustice or of incompetence.

We recognise the injustice of Naboth’s execution because it’s too familiar from our world. In 1 Kings 21 Ahab ‘legally’ stole Naboth’s vineyard when two witnesses (the right amount) accused Naboth of treason (a serious crime) – but it was an atrocious injustice which provoked strong words of judgement from God.

Capital punishment can so easily be sin, rather than be against sin.

Sin and mercy
For the Christian, also, there is constant awareness of experiencing mercy. We who rebelled against the giver of life deserve to have life removed from us – we’ve earned death (Romans 6:23). But we were given life!

Although the state is not church, or a Christian institution, I think that Christians have every reason to make mercy appear in the way our states run. Especially in rich nations like Australia we have opportunity, I believe, to endure some extra financial burden as we mercifully refrain from executions.

My conclusion
I dislike the one-word summary people often use for their position on the death penalty: FOR/AGAINST. One word, either way, seems to over-simplify. So I have these concluding points for what I (currently) think, I hope you will engage to help me think even better!

States have authority, even to cause death
We need to understand capital punishment in relation to sin: the sin of criminal activity, and sin in the process of punishment
I believe every state should aspire to be a place of increasing mercy. We should long to have no capital punishment, while never downplaying the seriousness of crime